[COLUMN] More warming fantasy from the U.N.
Irresponsible.
That is the best way to characterize the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Here we have a bunch of scientists coming to a wild conclusion based on dubious evidence and making dire predictions that have no basis in reality.
From the massive extinction of species to the potential for rising sea levels and the submerging of low-lying island nations in coming centuries, the group left no scare tactic untold.
The IPCC's report, which fortunately for us is the final report, is long on conjecture and blaming human activity, but short on common sense and scientific evidence that the globe is warming and that human activity is the cause.
Let's face it; the IPCC is a biased body with an agenda. Scientists who disagree with the IPCC are ostracized and insulted by the other "scientists" and their mouthpiece, Al Gore.
Take, for example, the case of John Christy, a member of the panel, who wrote a Nov. 1 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal questioning the global warming orthodoxy. Gore went on NBC's "Today" and pilloried Christy as being on the lunatic fringe and accused him of being "way outside the scientific consensus."
Gore ignores that fact that science is about the search for truth, not consensus. In fact, consensus is a hindrance to the search for truth, but great if you are seeking to push a political agenda, which Gore is doing.
Then there are the thousands of scientists who disagree with the panel. The Pasteur Institute's Dr. Paul Reiter resigned from the IPCC in disgust because of what the panel was doing. Additionally, some 19,000 scientists have signed the Petition Project questioning the scientific basis of climate alarmism.
Read more!
Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran
How frightening:
A majority of likely voters-52%-would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows. ...
... Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same - but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups. ...
... As the possibility the U.S. may strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68%) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - of those, 27% believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31%) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22% said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15% said they don't think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9% believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.
For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1226
Please click the link below to view the full news release:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1379
BB code feature fixed, expanded
I was having trouble, as some of you may have noticed, with the BB code feature.
Well, it should be fixed now and I added the ability to put YouTube videos in comments to items.
bold This is a silly placeholder text...
italic
underline
red
size twentyfourc=a+b
http://nucleuscms.org
Nucleus CMS
someone@example.com
New features of version 0.3:
[quote="tlucente"]This is a silly placeholder text...[/quote]
[COLUMN] Iraq war clearly illegal, unjust
Artist unknown
"How many legs would a dog have if you called its tail a leg?
"Just four because calling a tail a leg does not make it so."
While the above is often attributed to President Abraham Lincoln, I have never been able to prove that. However, its provenance is less important than its message. What the above tells us is that facts are stubborn things and regardless of how badly we wish something to be true, we cannot change that reality. Or, as we often say in the news business, facts sometimes get in the way of a good story.
The same holds true for those who support the war in Iraq. No matter how badly they wish it were so and regardless of the dictates of their passions, the fact remains that the war is not only unjust, but illegal as well.
First, the more subjective of the two is the justness of the war.
As Ecclesiastes tells us in the Christian Bible, there is a time for everything. Included in that must be a time for war. There are clearly circumstances under which a free people can morally and justly engage in war.
Throughout the centuries, a concept known as Just War has evolved thanks to theologians and other philosophers, most notably one of my favorite saints, St. Thomas Aquinas.
Basically, in order for a war to be just: the parties involved must have just cause; the war must be declared by a proper authority; the participants must possess the right intention; there must be a reasonable chance of success; and the end must be proportional to the means used.
Waging a war of aggression against a nation that neither attacked us nor posed any kind of threat to us, i.e., Iraq, clearly does not fall into the category of Just War. This is important because a just people do not fight unjust wars. We have clearly abrogated the moral high ground on the world stage by waging this unjust war against the Iraqi people.
Read more!
[COLUMN] Honor our troops: bring them home
The older I get, the less meaning Veterans Day holds for me and it has nothing to with the veterans, a group to which I proudly belong.
The problem is in how hypocritically this country treats not only its veterans but also its current military members. We assign a day each year to honor our veterans. We hang stupid little magnets on our cars to show our alleged support for our troops. Yet, we continue to permit the government to waste the lives of our brave warriors on an illegal, unjust, and immoral war of aggression.
Here in Ohio, the state's Democratic treasurer wants to amend the Ohio Constitution to permit the state to give war veterans $100 a month for every month they serve in a war.
What's the point?
America's soldiers, sailors, and Marines don't want money, medals, parades, fame, or other accolades. The career goal of soldiers, sailors, and Marines is to stay alive in situations and conditions that are not always conducive to accomplishing such a goal.
While our brave warriors would not hesitate to give their lives for their fellow warriors and their country, they simply want consideration of the importance of their individual lives before the government sends them into a fight. In other words, the cause must be just and the war must be legal. Another consideration, perhaps the most important, is that we must properly execute the war with enough troops, money, and equipment to ensure a victory. America's fighting men and women do not care about the political ramifications of decisions made when fighting a war. Once the shooting begins, the only consideration can be victory.
America has not fought to win a war since World War II. In every action since, America's politicians have been more concerned with the politics behind their decisions and good people die because of that.
President Bush is no different.
Read more!
School levy FAILED!!!!!!! Moe Loses!
Lima City Schools levy failed, 61.14 percent to 38.86 percent. I would call that a spanking but there is no corporal punishment in schools.
In other good news, John Nixon beat Herbert Ray "Moe" Magnus 65.17 percent to 34.83 percent.
One reason government schools so costly
The above graph from an enlightening Cato Institute study: Saving Money and Improving Education: How School Choice Can Help States Reduce Education Costs demonstrates one reason why government schools are so costly: too many nonteacher employees, especially adminstrators.
During the two decades covered by this graph, pupil enrollment increased 13 percent while the number of teachers grew by 35 percent. Most telling, nonteaching staff increased 61 percent! According to the Cato report, "Nationally, public schools now have about 1 employee for every 8.1 students, and teachers make up only 40% of total school employees."
Yet, Lima City schools Superintendent Karel Oxley and other administrators in the district continually denounce school choice programs.
Sounds to me like they are trying to protect their fiefdom. Shouldn't the priority for educators be educating the children instead of protecting the district's revenue stream?
Until the administrators demonstrate a true commitment to education along with a zeal for fiscal responsibility, Lima residents should OPPOSE this ill-considered, overly large tax increases of $2.25 million a year to combat a projected $300,000 deficit in 2009.
VOTE AGAINST THE LIMA CITY SCHOOLS TAX LEVY!
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
